Grenfell, Prisons, and the Inability to Appeal – Round Up

4 November 2019 by

GrenfellThe Grenfell Tower Inquiry released its first report into the disaster. Its findings included:

  • The refurbishment of Grenfell tower broke building regulations because it used a mixture of combustible cladding. This was the main reason the fire spread.
  • Firefighters were let down by poor training, leadership, equipment and plans. Junior firefighters arriving at the scene were “faced with a situation for which they had not been properly prepared”.
  • The ‘stay put’ advice used by the London Fire Brigade was wrong, and cost lives.

The report recommends that national guidelines for evacuating high-rise flats are created. It also seeks for a programme of regular inspections of high-rise flats and lifts

The Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, Dany Cotton, attracted particular criticism from the media. Ms Cotton had said that although she was saddened by the loss of life, there was nothing she would have done differently. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the Chair of the Inquiry, described her as showing “remarkable insensitivity” and suggested this showed an inability to learn from the tragedy.

Some have called for Ms Cotton to resign and to give up her £2 million pension. Ms Cotton has since stated that she regrets causing offence and, in light of the report, would have changed her approach. Ms Cotton has also confirmed that some senior officers from the London fire brigade have been interviewed under caution by the police.

The second phrase of the inquiry starts in January, with hearings expected to last 18 months.

In Other News….

  • In a move that may have significant consequences for free speech and democracy, Twitter announced that it will ban all political advertising on its platform. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, argued that messages “should be earned, not bought”. The decision put pressure on Facebook to make a similar move, but it announced that it will not be following Twitter’s example. Facebook argues private companies should not censor private individuals. The manager of President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign described the ban as “yet another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives”. Implementing Mr Dorsey’s decision may be difficult, however, because of the problems in defining what is a ‘political issue’. More from the Guardian here.
  • Fracking has been banned indefinitely in the UK. Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into rocks, splitting them and releasing natural gas. A report published by the Oil and Gas Authority found that it was not possible to predict the ‘probability or size’ of tremors caused by fracking. Fracking has been banned since August because it caused an earthquake occurred in Lancashire. However, some have pointed out that the ban is not permanent. The Independent reports here.
  • A general election will be held on the 12th December. Labour had tabled an amendment which would have lowered the voting age to 16 and given EU citizens living in the UK the right to vote. However, the Deputy Speaker rejected the amendment. He ruled that the amendment would cost money, meaning a ‘money resolution’ was required and the matter was outside the scope of the bill. A number of MPs have announced they will be standing down, with many citing abuse as the reason for their decision. More from the BBC here.

In the Courts:

  • O’Brien, R (On the Application Of) v Independent Adjudicator: The Defendant was an Independent Adjudicator (“IA”). An IA is a District Judge to whom Prisoner Governors can refer disputes. A prisoner judicially reviewed an IA’s decision to refer disciplinary charges to the police, instead of deciding them for herself. The court agreed that the Defendant had behaved unlawfully. Independent Adjudicators have neither an express nor implied power to report matters to the police, except in exceptional circumstances. IA’s deal with sensitive personal data, which they possess for one purpose only: to enable them to inquire into a charge. If an IA believes that the police should be informed about a particular incident, they ought to relay their concerns to the relevant Prison Governor. It would then be for the governor to decide what action to take, such as contacting the police.
  • Kearney v Hampshire Police: The appellant sought to challenge a Chief Constable’s refusal to disclose CCTV footage which was allegedly relevant to his murder conviction. The main issue was whether the Court of Appeal possessed the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This was because a High Court judge had previously ruled that Mr Kearney’s application for judicial review was completely without merit. The Court of Appeal ruled it that it did not have jurisdiction. Section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 states “No appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal … from any judgment of the High Court in any criminal cause or matter”. The court found that s.18 prevented an appeal of the decision to mark the appellant’s application as ‘totally without merit’. Mr Kearney had tried to draw a distinction between ‘judgment’ and a ‘decision’, but the court found this argument was not supported by legislative history or case law. The terms are used interchangeably. This view was supported by the binding House of Lords decision of Government of the United States of America v Montgomery and another. Application dismissed.
  • RS (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: RS is a Sri Lankan citizen who was refused asylum in the UK. RS’s appeals to the First-Tier and Upper-Tier Tribunals failed. This case concerned whether both tribunals had made a material error of law in failing to give weight to the fact that RS had escaped from detention in Sri Lanka. The Court of Appeal judged that they had. RS given a credible account of having escaped from detention. The fact RS had escaped made it likely that the authorities would seek to recapture him and do so by issuing an arrest warrant. This view was confirmed by the case of GJ and others (post-civil war returnees) Sri Lanka. In GJ the Upper Tribunal issued guidance that, based on the extensive evidence it had considered, suspected Tamil activists that escaped would normally be recaptured, thereby placing them at risk of ill-treatment. The court decided not to remit the matter back to the tribunal. Instead, it found the only conclusion that could be drawn was that RS had a well-founded fear of serious harm if returned to Sri Lanka.

On the UKHRB

  • I published the penultimate article in a series exploring the ALBA Conference 2019. It focuses on a number of practical points, including cost capping.
  • Rosalind English released her second article describing a ban of pet shock collars.
  • Daniel McKaveney considered a critical report on police and prison facilities in Scotland.
  • Law Pod’s latest episode features Kate O’Regan, former judge in the Constitutional Court of South Africa.

Events:

  • Women, Reproductive Rights and the Law: LSE, 6th November, with the UK Association of Women Judges. More information here.
  • What if state law no longer sexed us?, King’s College London, 8th November. More here.
  • Code and Conduct: the future of legal professions, LSE, 13th November. More here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, please email the Blog’s Commissioning Editor at jonathan.metzer@1cor.com

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: